OBJECTIVE: To provide levels of total and speciated urinary arsenic in a representative sample of the US population. METHODS: For the first time, total arsenic and seven inorganic and organic arsenic species were measured in the urine of participants (n=2557) for the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Data were compiled as geometric means and selected percentiles of urinary arsenic concentrations (microg/l) and creatinine-corrected urinary arsenic (microg/g creatinine) for total arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid, arsenobetaine, and a sum of the inorganic related species. RESULTS: Arsenic acid, arsenous acid, arsenocholine, and trimethylarsine oxide were detected in 7.6%, 4.6%, 1.8%, and 0.3% of the participants, respectively (the limits of detection of 0.6-1.2 microg/l). Monomethylarsonic acid was detected in 35% of the overall population. For all participants aged > or =6 years, dimethylarsinic acid (geometric mean of 3.71 microg/l) and arsenobetaine (geometric mean of 1.55 microg/l) had the greatest contribution to the total urinary arsenic levels. A relatively greater percentage contribution from arsenobetaine is seen at higher total urinary arsenic levels and from dimethylarsinic acid at lower total urinary arsenic levels. For all participants aged > or =6 years, the 95th percentiles for total urinary arsenic and the sum of inorganic-related arsenic (arsenic acid, arsenous acid, dimethylarsinic acid, and monomethylarsonic acid) were 65.4 and 18.9 microg/l, respectively. For total arsenic and dimethylarsinic acid, covariate-adjusted geometric means demonstrated several slight differences due to age, gender, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The data reflect relative background contributions of inorganic and seafood-related arsenic exposures in the US population. Arsenobetaine and dimethylarsinic acid are the major arsenic species present with arsenobetaine, accounting for a greater proportion of total arsenic as total arsenic levels increase.
OBJECTIVE: To provide levels of total and speciated urinary arsenic in a representative sample of the US population. METHODS: For the first time, total arsenic and seven inorganic and organic arsenic species were measured in the urine of participants (n=2557) for the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Data were compiled as geometric means and selected percentiles of urinary arsenic concentrations (microg/l) and creatinine-corrected urinary arsenic (microg/g creatinine) for total arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid, arsenobetaine, and a sum of the inorganic related species. RESULTS:Arsenic acid, arsenous acid, arsenocholine, and trimethylarsine oxide were detected in 7.6%, 4.6%, 1.8%, and 0.3% of the participants, respectively (the limits of detection of 0.6-1.2 microg/l). Monomethylarsonic acid was detected in 35% of the overall population. For all participants aged > or =6 years, dimethylarsinic acid (geometric mean of 3.71 microg/l) and arsenobetaine (geometric mean of 1.55 microg/l) had the greatest contribution to the total urinary arsenic levels. A relatively greater percentage contribution from arsenobetaine is seen at higher total urinary arsenic levels and from dimethylarsinic acid at lower total urinary arsenic levels. For all participants aged > or =6 years, the 95th percentiles for total urinary arsenic and the sum of inorganic-related arsenic (arsenic acid, arsenous acid, dimethylarsinic acid, and monomethylarsonic acid) were 65.4 and 18.9 microg/l, respectively. For total arsenic and dimethylarsinic acid, covariate-adjusted geometric means demonstrated several slight differences due to age, gender, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The data reflect relative background contributions of inorganic and seafood-related arsenic exposures in the US population. Arsenobetaine and dimethylarsinic acid are the major arsenic species present with arsenobetaine, accounting for a greater proportion of total arsenic as total arsenic levels increase.
Authors: Diane Gilbert-Diamond; Kathryn L Cottingham; Joann F Gruber; Tracy Punshon; Vicki Sayarath; A Jay Gandolfi; Emily R Baker; Brian P Jackson; Carol L Folt; Margaret R Karagas Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J Tuakuila; D Lison; A-C Lantin; F Mbuyi; G Deumer; V Haufroid; P Hoet Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Darcy Weidemann; Chin-Chi Kuo; Ana Navas-Acien; Alison G Abraham; Virginia Weaver; Jeffrey Fadrowski Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Yu-Ching Cheng; Carolyn M Reyes-Guzman; Carol H Christensen; Brian L Rostron; Kathryn C Edwards; Lanqing Wang; Jun Feng; Jeffery M Jarrett; Cynthia D Ward; Baoyun Xia; Heather L Kimmel; Kevin Conway; Carmine Leggett; Kristie Taylor; Charlie Lawrence; Ray Niaura; Mark J Travers; Andrew Hyland; Stephen S Hecht; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Maciej L Goniewicz; Nicolette Borek; Benjamin C Blount; Dana M van Bemmel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Matthew O Gribble; Barbara V Howard; Jason G Umans; Nawar M Shara; Kevin A Francesconi; Walter Goessler; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Ellen K Silbergeld; Eliseo Guallar; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Adrienne S Ettinger; Ami R Zota; Chitra J Amarasiriwardena; Marianne R Hopkins; Joel Schwartz; Howard Hu; Robert O Wright Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 9.031